Changing Another Person

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

[From Fred Nickols (981205.1705 EST)]--

Hello, all. I posted the following to the LO (Learning
Organization) list. Because it so obviously relates to
what transpires on this list I thought I'd post it here,
too, and ask for comments from the PCT view.

···

*****************
Posted to LO on 12/5/98...

Jon Krispin posted at length regarding the subject line above
and I'll not attempt a response to all of it. However, a couple
of points do draw some comments.

Jon cited me below...

Fred Nickols wrote in LO20060:

On my part, I believe that every human being is in absolute
control of his or her own behavior. That said, can someone
put a gun to my head and coerce me into doing something I
wouldn't ordinarily do? Of course, but in the last analysis
I am the one doing the doing.

And Jon then goes on to observe...

Here is a perfect example of an antecedent (gun to head with demand being
made) that is very effectively paired with a consequence (a negative,
IMMEDIATE, certain consequence). As Fred points out, the likelihood that
this antecedent will be successful at influencing behavior is very high.
This also illustrates what I described in my previous post on behavioral
psychology as negative reinforcement. The behavior that results,
compliance with the demand, is often referred to as escape or avoidance
behavior. We will work to reduce or remove (avoid) the aversive condition
(antecedent), and no more. As soon as the threat is removed, the behavior
which it "motivates" will stop.

Now before I comment, let me make clear that I am not going
to criticize what Jon wrote nor do I intend being overly
"picky" but I do aim to clarify something.

Nowhere in what I said did I say that the gun to my head
influences my behavior. I will acknowledge that my actions
are intended to avoid getting shot and, eventually, removing
the threat posed by the gun to my head. But my behavior is
under my control. It grows increasingly important in my own
thinking to draw a distinction between my behavior and my
actions. My actions and, frequently their effects, are
observable and, under certain conditions, controllable by
others. My behavior is not entirely observable and it is
not at all amenable to control by others. Indeed, attempts
to control my behavior will engender conflict whereas my
actions are quite often very negotiable.

Note: This distinction between behavior and actions derives
       from Perceptual Control Theory as developed and
       articulated by William T. Powers. The best source is
       his 1973 book, Behavior: The Control of Perception.
       (If any of you have been to my articles web site and
       read the systems poem there, you will note the influence
       of his point of view.)

So, not to be unnecessarily picky, but I think it is helpful
to distinguish between behavior and actions. Just exactly why
will be apparent in a moment.

Later in his post, Jon writes...

Remember from my previous post on the behaviorist perspective
that consequences that follow behavior either strengthen/reinforce the
behavior (positive and negative reinforcement) or weaken/balance it
(extinction and punishment).

Technically (and "pickily") speaking, that is simply not
the case. There is no way consequences strengthen or
weaken any preceding behavior or actions. Consequences
might be conveniently spoken of as "shaping" future actions
in similar situations, but the behavior and actions that
occurred previously are gone off into the past where they
are not influenced by anything, not even the vagaries of
memory. The same is true of any consequences that might be
seen as linked to our earlier actions. We do remember--and
we learn. We change and we adapt. But in no way is a
behavior or action at one point in time shaped by its
immediately following consequences.

To repeat my earlier stipulation, I am not trying here to
be critical of Jon nor do I believe I am being overly
picky. I simply think that there are tremendous errors
in thinking that are invoked by blithe acceptance of the
proposition that behavior is shaped by its consequences.

(Excuse me while I go don my full suit of body armor in
anticipation of a full frontal assault from all quarters.)
--

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

2

[From Tim Carey (981206.1015)]

[From Fred Nickols (981205.1705 EST)]--

Great post Fred.

3

[From Hank Folson (981206.0800)]

Fred Nickols (981205.1705 EST)]--

... and ask for comments from the PCT view.

The subject should be Changing Another Person's Phlogiston. :wink:

On my part, I believe that every human being is in absolute
control of his or her own behavior. That said, can someone
put a gun to my head and coerce me into doing something I
wouldn't ordinarily do?

And Jon then goes on to observe...

Here is a perfect example of an antecedent (gun to head with demand being
made) that is very effectively paired with a consequence (a negative,
IMMEDIATE, certain consequence).

Nowhere in what I said did I say that the gun to my head
influences my behavior.

The problem is that whether PCT is correct or Jon's theory is correct,
putting guns to people's heads still produces the same results. The only
advantage PCT has in this specific example is that PCT can offer
straightforward reasoning for why and when the trigger will be pulled.
When gun-to-the-head is applied along with the question, "Where are you
hiding your family, or enemies of the State, or the treasure/gold/money,
or the TV remote.", PCT will do a better job of predicting what the
answer to the question might be.

You might try the approach of asking for predictions of outcomes, instead
of explaining the outcomes. Method Of Levels?

Note: This distinction between behavior and actions derives
      from Perceptual Control Theory as developed and
      articulated by William T. Powers.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink by putting a
gun to his head. :wink:

So, not to be unnecessarily picky, but I think it is helpful
to distinguish between behavior and actions.

To most people, actions ARE behavior. By definition. My "Behavior: The
Phlogiston of PCT" post was all about dealing with this deeply ingrained
definition for the word behavior.

(Excuse me while I go don my full suit of body armor in
anticipation of a full frontal assault from all quarters.)

Hint: Tilting with windmills is much more satisfying if your goal is to
enjoy the battle, rather than to win.

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

704 ELVIRA AVE. REDONDO BEACH CA 90277
Phone: 310-540-1552 Fax: 310-361-8202 Web Site: www.henryjames.com

4

[From Kenny Kitzke (981206.1243 EST)]

<Fred Nickols (981205.1705 EST)>

<I simply think that there are tremendous errors
in thinking that are invoked by blithe acceptance of the
proposition that behavior is shaped by its consequences.>

Behavior is shaped by a comparison of your perception of what you want and
your perception of what you will get after you act (consequences). Of
course, your perception of the consequences is just perceived in the mind.
These perceptions could be wrong or certainly incomplete.

New knowledge or experience could change your perceptions of what
consequences go with what actions. I suspect that would impact *future*
actions. I guess this is called learning?

When a person lights up a cigarette (action), a PCTer would conclude it
gets them a certain perception of what they want (consequences).

Some possible consequences they want might be:
* quenching an addiction
* reducing nervous tension
* being one of the crowd
* being cool, etc. (ad infinitum)

This same person, after smoking the cigarette, could walk into a hospital
to visit their wife who has been admitted for tests and observations. On
seeing the doctor, the doctor explains that his dear wife (who is a heavier
smoker than he) has incurable lung cancer and is near death.

Such a learning of even the possibility of the consequences of smoking to
him could change his reference perception for wanting to light up another
weed -- and end that action forever. Or, he could ignore or justify the
consequences and light up on the way to the funeral director's office.

In summary, perceived consequences of actions seem to me to be *part* of
where perceived reference values come from in our consciousness and are
therefore inherently part of PCT.

Yet, unlike believers in cognitive psychology, PCTers recognize that our
perceived consequences and our resulting actions (and certainly our
behavior) are totally up to us and may mean little for the purpose of
another person. If behavior was totally shaped by consequences, "just say
no" would work far better than it does. Yet, at least perceived
consequences, seem to be a major part of behavior at least in humans.

I have been away from the forum for some time. If there were any
developments or reactions to your HBR article on empowerment, would you
mind sharing them? Post me privately if you have already posted about this
on the net.

Kenny